The thing you need to understand about John is that he likes to dump on Aperture. He goes out of his way to make negative posts about Aperture whenever he can - just check his blog or other posts in this forum. He never contributes anything to the Aperture discussion so I really don't know what his agenda is.

This is not true. Aperture allows both forms of image filing - you can let Aperture decide where the images are stored (managed) or you can decide (referenced). Plus you get the virtual organization of albums, books, light tables, etc.

If you pick managed, Aperture puts the images inside its own hidden folder systems (called a package) and moves them around in there as you move them around inside Aperture. You can open the package in the Finder if you want to dig around in there and see the images yourself. They are not locked away, just filed differently.

When you pick referenced, the images are kept in folders in the Finder in the obvious way.

In either case, if you go to the Finder and move files around, Aperture may lose them and you have to tell it where they are.

The nice thing about Aperture is you can mix the virtual organization with the physical. The aperture project holds the images and inside that project you can create albums, books, light tables, etc. I find that to be a much more powerful way to organize than Lightroom's separate folders and collections.

Thanks, then I stand by it in its context. Lightroom offers direct control of file and folder locations through its UI, unlike Aperture, and both offer virtual folders, Lightroom's being optional and Aperture's compulsory. With heavy irony, wouldn't it be great if Lightroom users were forced to jump through hoops like File > Relocate / Consolidate Originals just to control where their files are? If the guy had identified other aspects - Aperture's better smart albums, list view, preview mode, slideshows, books, perhaps AppleScript too - he might have been on firm ground.

Lightroom offers direct control of file and folder locations through its UI, unlike Aperture, and both offer virtual folders, Lightroom's being optional and Aperture's compulsory.

OK, I see where you're coming from.

And yes, Aperture (stemming from it's inception) has assumed that you don't care where, exactly, the original image files are stored on your drive. For lots of folks, like me, that works fine - let the computer keep track of such things as long as I can find any output (JPGs) I might produce. After all, I can create books, order prints, create slideshows, make prints and even email JPGs without having to touch those files. Others want the ability to "see" their files out there on the hard drive; and they really hate Aperture's managed system.

But that managed system allows for Aperture's ability to save vaults as all inclusive backups. Lightroom users depend on other backup systems.

The "consolidate masters" command is for moving originals back into Aperture's package. But if you do want to move referenced files around on the drive, you need the "relocate masters" command.

In the end, as I've often said, the Aperture vs. Lightroom discussion has a lot in common with the Nikon vs. Canon discussion. Both are powerful and effective tools about which intelligent people can disagree on which is "best," because a lot comes down to personal taste.

Isn't that just a way to evade a judgement? YMMV, Different Strokes etc. There are plenty of times when you can say A does something in a better way than B.

There ARE times that A does a specific task better than B. For example, Lightroom has better noise reduction abilities than Aperture and Aperture has better Slideshow abilities than Lightroom (not to start a feature-by-feature count).

But there are also times that A does a specific task differently than B. "Better" then depends a lot on the user.

And, since powerful programs such as Aperture and Lightroom do so very many specific tasks, its hard to callout an overall "winner" when some of those tasks are done better by one and some better by the other.

This is why I say it's a bit like Nikon vs. Canon.

I use Aperture (as my primary choice, since I own Lightroom 4.1, too), because the "better" features outweigh the "worse" features for the way I work and the things I do.

In my opinion with my English from Italy about the match aperture vs lightroom can stop just saying I think the best software is that one suite perfectly on you and in my opinion there isn't nothing you can get from these kind of discussion. As the Nikon vs Canon long debate doesn't get you nothing good for yor work. Nikon user will go on to work with as Canon users to. The same Aperture's users and lightroom to.So in my opinion that's the fact.

This is not true. Aperture allows both forms of image filing - you can let Aperture decide where the images are stored (managed) or you can decide (referenced). Plus you get the virtual organization of albums, books, light tables, etc.

If you pick managed, Aperture puts the images inside its own hidden folder systems (called a package) and moves them around in there as you move them around inside Aperture. You can open the package in the Finder if you want to dig around in there and see the images yourself. They are not locked away, just filed differently.

When you pick referenced, the images are kept in folders in the Finder in the obvious way.

In either case, if you go to the Finder and move files around, Aperture may lose them and you have to tell it where they are.

The nice thing about Aperture is you can mix the virtual organization with the physical. The aperture project holds the images and inside that project you can create albums, books, light tables, etc. I find that to be a much more powerful way to organize than Lightroom's separate folders and collections.

Bob

Very well said, imho. On point, specific, clear, true, personal, and free of put-downs and posturing.

Find an image that you've used H&S on previously and you will see the old H&S adjustment brick still there.Make a copy version of your imagetrash the other bricksset H&S to zero and apply to the entire image (in case you had previously brushed it)Save as preset(Optionally apply a keyboard shortcut to your preset)

You can now apply the old H&S adjustment to any of your new images if you wish.

(FWIW ... IMO the old H&S adjustment was/is the most interesting tool in Aperture. I hope they bring it back as an alternative. File Aperture Feedback if you feel the same.)

_Very_ welcome news. Thanks! I use H&S on almost every adjusted Image.

For those who want complete step-by-step instructions, I have posted some on the Apple Aperture Discussion forum, here.

Works great.

I don't know of a way within Aperture to apply a keyboard shortcut to a Preset (now called an Effect) -- do you? I set it to one using Keyboard Maestro. I selected a keyboard shortcut very similar to the ones I use for all the Quick Brushes.

FWIW, Aperture lets you personalise and add keyboard commands for virtually every part of its entire UI. You can also have more than one 'personalised keyboard', so if you really wanted to, you could get a couple of keyboards, put stickers on them and work very fast that way.

Find an image that you've used H&S on previously and you will see the old H&S adjustment brick still there.Make a copy version of your imagetrash the other bricksset H&S to zero and apply to the entire image (in case you had previously brushed it)Save as preset(Optionally apply a keyboard shortcut to your preset)

You can now apply the old H&S adjustment to any of your new images if you wish.

(FWIW ... IMO the old H&S adjustment was/is the most interesting tool in Aperture. I hope they bring it back as an alternative. File Aperture Feedback if you feel the same.)

This also works if you want to preserve the 'old' Edge Sharpen brick. I previously decided I preferred Edge Sharpen to Sharpen but see that Aperture 3.3 only has Sharpen. I don't know if this is an improved version but don't want to take the risk of not having Edge Sharpen available if I wanted it so followed the same idea of duplicating an old image, removing all other adjustments and saving as an effect.

This also works if you want to preserve the 'old' Edge Sharpen brick. I previously decided I preferred Edge Sharpen to Sharpen but see that Aperture 3.3 only has Sharpen. I don't know if this is an improved version but don't want to take the risk of not having Edge Sharpen available if I wanted it so followed the same idea of duplicating an old image, removing all other adjustments and saving as an effect.

Regards

John

Hi John,

I just checked and Edge Sharpening is still within Aperture 3.3. I found it under Add Adjustment.

Personally I go back and forth between LR4 and Aperture 3.3.Have a new MacBook Pro with the Retina Display on order and was just notified from Apple it will arrive on Monday, June 18th.Since Aperture 3.3 has be optimized to work with the Retina Display it is going to be interesting on how viewing improves.I am sure Adobe will be upgrading their software to take advantage of the Retina Display.

I might say mind your own xxxxxxx business, Daniel, but I was reading the thread (am I allowed to do that?) because I was curious (is that OK too?) to figure out the change to previews as I couldn't see it from looking at Aperture on my own computer (OK with you?), and corrected a remarkably misleading point about Lightroom. To be honest, as the thread had moved on I was going to let sleeping dogs lie, but as you ask....